An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge)

Sponsor

Status

Second reading (House), as of Oct. 21, 2016

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-28.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

This enactment amends the victim surcharge provisions in the Criminal Code to

(a) allow the court to exempt an offender from the payment of a victim surcharge in cases where the offender satisfies the court that the payment would cause the offender undue hardship and to provide the court with guidance with respect to what constitutes undue hardship;

(b) provide that a victim surcharge is to be paid for each offence, with an exception for certain administration of justice offences if the total amount of surcharges imposed on an offender for these types of offences would be disproportionate in the circumstances;

(c) require courts to provide reasons for the application of any exception for certain administration of justice offences or any exemption from the payment of a victim surcharge; and

(d) clarify that these amendments apply to any offender who is sentenced after the day on which the amendments come into force, regardless of whether or not the offence was committed before that day.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, provided by the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

JusticeRoutine Proceedings

February 1st, 2017 / 3:15 p.m.
See context

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, the charter statement on Bill C-28, an act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge).

JusticeOral Questions

November 1st, 2016 / 2:50 p.m.
See context

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the comprehensive criminal justice system review that we are undertaking.

Our government supports mandatory minimum penalties for the most serious of offences. However, we are going to conduct a comprehensive review of mandatory minimums, with an eye to ensuring that we inject the necessary discretion, where appropriate, to judges. This is the reason for Bill C-28: to ensure that judges have the ability, with respect to the victims' fine surcharge, to take into account the financial hardships of the individuals who appear before them.

Criminal CodeRoutine Proceedings

October 21st, 2016 / 12:10 p.m.
See context

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (victim surcharge).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

October 20th, 2016 / 9:45 a.m.
See context

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Thank you.

To follow up on that, it's clear that supervised injection facilities and harm reduction approaches save lives. They address a whole range of other community impact issues as well.

You spoke about the issue of treatment. Onsite provides support for that, but then, coming out of Onsite—I know this to be a problem in my own community—people don't have better alternatives to go to. I often think that other, more long-term treatment options are not available, and hence we create quite a challenge within the system. People can get into a situation where there's a revolving door.

With that in mind, Dr. Wood, could you elaborate on what needs to be done in the next phase? In the meantime, we are faced with yet another crisis with fentanyl usage. Deaths are occurring in our communities, not just in my community, but throughout the country. Could you comment on Bill C-2 and whether or not that bill should be repealed?

October 19th, 2016 / 6:50 p.m.
See context

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Very good.

Are there questions?

I have a question. We have three parties represented here at the table with differing opinions, so we try not to debate with people who give us their ideas. In the last election, we had a party that was against Bill C-51, a party that was for Bill C-51, and a party that was for changing problematic parts of Bill C-51. There were three different views and, as the last speaker said, there was a variety of public consultations and 311,000 people on a petition, etc. We have all that.

The election happened. Democracy happens in our system. The party that said they were going to repeal problematic parts won the election, but people are telling us, no, our mandate is to repeal it, which we told people we weren't going to do. I'm trying to square that circle to understand your.... Is it the democracy problem or...? I'm just trying to figure that out, because the party that wanted to repeal the bill did not win the election. The party that wanted to keep it did not win the election. The party that wanted to repeal problematic parts won the election. How do you...?

October 19th, 2016 / 2:40 p.m.
See context

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I appreciate that.

Mr. Atkey, I did have questions for you, but my time is coming to an end. It's all related to Bill C-22, so we'll see you when you come before us again.